Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company v. Kerse, Administrator Of Barry

• 1915 • 239 U.S. 576 • White Court
In the case of Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company v. Kerse, Administrator of Barry (1915), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a moving train. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide safe working conditions, while the defendant maintained that it was not responsible as there were no specific safety regulations in place at that time regarding such incidents. The...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1915
Docket: 129
239 U.S. 576
36 S. Ct. 174
60 L. Ed. 448
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1933
Argued: Dec 10, 1915

Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company v. Kerse, Administrator Of Barry

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company v. Kerse, Administrator of Barry (1915), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee who fell from a moving train. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to provide safe working conditions, while the defendant maintained that it was not responsible as there were no specific safety regulations in place at that time regarding such incidents. The court ruled in favor of the railway company, stating that employers are not obligated to ensure absolute safety and cannot foresee every possible accident or danger their employees might encounter during work hours. It further stated that workers must also take reasonable precautions for their own safety and bear some responsibility for any accidents they may experience on duty due to negligence or carelessness.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Kanawha & Michigan Railway Company v. Kerse, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to hold the railway company liable for damages resulting from an accident involving one of their employees. The dissenting justices contended that there was no evidence presented during trial proving negligence on part of the railway company or showing a direct link between any alleged negligence and injury sustained by Barry, who died as a result of his injuries. They further asserted that Barry had assumed risk associated with his employment when he accepted his job at the railroad and therefore should not be entitled to compensation for injuries incurred while performing said job. Additionally, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of federal safety laws applicable to railroads, arguing these were intended primarily to protect passengers rather than employees like Barry.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Jan 10, 1916
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms